In sum, if carefully calibrated along the lines suggested above, carbon equalization measures at the border, imposed on certain imports, can be modeled in compliance with WTO non-discrimination rules and/or the WTO’s environmental exception.

So the economics are right; it’s WTO-legal; and it would neutralize a major political argument against controlling greenhouse gases. Why, oh, why, would Obama say “Ni”?

I think Krugman is overstating things when he draw the conclusion "it's WTO-legal" (that is, carbon tariffs are WTO-legal) from Joost's statement. Joost was careful to say that such tariffs "can be" legal "if" designed in the right way. Whether this condition will be met is far from clear.

Comments

In sum, if carefully calibrated along the lines suggested above, carbon equalization measures at the border, imposed on certain imports, can be modeled in compliance with WTO non-discrimination rules and/or the WTO’s environmental exception.

So the economics are right; it’s WTO-legal; and it would neutralize a major political argument against controlling greenhouse gases. Why, oh, why, would Obama say “Ni”?

I think Krugman is overstating things when he draw the conclusion "it's WTO-legal" (that is, carbon tariffs are WTO-legal) from Joost's statement. Joost was careful to say that such tariffs "can be" legal "if" designed in the right way. Whether this condition will be met is far from clear.